(Photo by w0zny via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED)
Listen to this article:
When Uzbekistan gained independence in 1991, it inherited a quota production system imposed by the Soviet authorities in the 1920s, in which the government assumed control of cotton production, processing, and marketing. Since then, the newly independent country continued this practice to guarantee economic growth and, for years, obliged its nationals to harvest and pick cotton. International NGOs estimate that the country’s capital, Tashkent, forcibly recruits over one million citizens each year. Children, students, medical staff, and public servants are pressured to weed and pick cotton under inhumane conditions and without compensation.
The Uzbek political leaders encouraged the conduction of these oppressive actions by promoting a false sense of moral obligation. By conceiving cotton as the historical source of national wealth, the authorities created a national sentiment of collective effort to achieve economic development. The reproduction of these ideas reinforced a set of social beliefs which facilitated the imposition of abusive practices. Thus, even when the authorities did not threaten its citizens directly, many felt compelled to work in the fields, as they believed it was their “patriotic duty” to do so.
Several NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, and the Uzbek Forum on Human Rights (UFHR), have criticized the system and blamed the central government for violating human rights by encouraging forced labour. In 2007, a coalition of NGOs, trade unions, and brand associations known as the Cotton Campaign launched an international initiative to raise global awareness; in 2009, it urged for a world boycott of the Uzbek cotton industry. Its main objective was to pressure Tashkent to stop these practices and to prevent retailers from being complicit in the systematic human rights violations occurring in the country. As a result, more than 300 textile companies supported the petition and vowed not to use Uzbek cotton in their products.
What is Forced Labour?
The International Labour Organization (ILO) defines forced labour as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily.” According to this definition, the concept encompasses two constitutive elements: “involuntariness” and “threat.” The former exists when the workers do not express their free and informed consent to perform a specific assignment. Conversely, the latter occurs when an individual is intimidated through any coercive means to execute a task. Several human rights organizations have documented the conflation of these two factors in the Uzbek context. Human Rights Watch (HRW), for instance, reported numerous cases where government officials threatened to expel students and fire low-level public servants if they refused to work in the cotton fields.
The forced labour policy imposed by the Uzbek government affected women disproportionately. Subject to high unemployment rates, women have traditionally been dependent on part-time, informal, and seasonal jobs to earn an income. This situation aggravated in rural areas where most female recruits came from, as they faced increased lack of opportunities and isolation from central authorities. Instead of designing social programs that included women, the government took advantage of their socioeconomic vulnerabilities and increased its coercion capacities against them. Consequently, the authorities forced pregnant women to work in the cotton fields for several hours a day in precarious conditions. In many cases, they also intimidated single mothers into picking cotton by threatening them to withhold welfare benefits for their children.
The local authorities were in charge of implementing the repressive system throughout the country by relying on the coordinated actions carried out by the Cabinet of Ministers. Each harvesting season, the Ministry of Health and local hospitals provided healthcare workers for cotton production. Similarly, the Ministries of Public and Specialized Education mobilized teachers and students from universities and schools in different regions and forced them to pick and weed cotton. These collective efforts often entailed the forced transfer of people to areas needing manual labourers to meet the production quotas determined by the government. Thus, Uzbek leaders from both the central and provincial levels established what HRW referred to as one of the “world’s largest, most exploitable state-run forced labour programs.”
Implementing forced labour policy caused significant disruptions in providing public health and education services. Due to staff shortages, many colleges and medical institutions suffered a severe reduction in their operational capacity, forcing some of them to close down during the harvesting season. A joint report issued in 2017 by Human Rights Watch and the Uzbek-German Forum for Human Rights estimates that college and school students who were required to work in the cotton fields had to interrupt their academic calendar for at least two months. Even when the authorities had not summoned them, they could not obtain quality education as their curriculums had to be shortened because most teachers were absent. Similarly, patients needing medical attention were negatively affected as thousands of doctors and nurses had to leave their jobs to work in the cotton fields.
Boycotts and Influencing Change
Boycotts are collective actions where individuals refuse to do business with someone or buy particular products for political reasons. They represent a method of economic noncooperation described by Gene Sharp used to express social grievances through non-violent actions. In this case, the Cotton Campaign implemented the boycotting strategy to achieve two main goals: to compel the Uzbek government to cease its forced labour policy and to promote the adoption of responsible business conduct. By adhering to the boycott pledge, the signatory brands committed to “not knowingly source Uzbek cotton for the manufacturing of any … product, until the government of Uzbekistan ends the practice of forced labour in its cotton sector.” Thus, the initiative allowed corporations to oppose Tashkent’s abusive practices by upholding their duty to respect human rights as posed by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).
Uzbekistan is the sixth-largest cotton producer in the world. Its economy heavily depends on this industry to generate revenues, representing 15% of the country’s total exports, which amount to $1.3 billion of annual inflows. Limiting the commercial relations of the Uzbek cotton industry and restricting its access to foreign markets, the boycott exerted economic pressure on Tashkent. International retailers who joined the pledge managed to find new cotton suppliers with other major producers, such as Australia, Brazil, and Turkey. Uzbekistan, however, lost multiple business deals and had to sell its textile products to countries such as China and Russia at a lower price.
As aforementioned, the boycott was not an end, as its primary purpose was not to restrict trade with Uzbekistan. Instead, it was part of a broader strategy to address the root causes of the problem by increasing the leverage of civil society in the country. The negative economic impact of the boycott compelled the government to open the possibility of negotiating structural transformations with trade unions, retailer companies and NGOs. Moreover, it raised awareness of the situation of the cotton industry and encouraged the adoption of a new business model based on a corporate responsibility to respect human rights. Consequently, the real success of the boycotting initiative relies not on its economic effects but on the long-term collective efforts undertaken to eradicate the long-imposed forced labour policy.
Cotton Campaign’s Results
In 2014, the Uzbek government stopped obliging children to work in the cotton fields. However, in the upcoming years, systematic labour rights violations increased among the adult population, as well as repression measures against activists who exposed the regime. Both HRW and UFHR reported numerous cases in which human rights defenders were victims of persecution, arbitrary arrests, confiscation of their research material and threats to their physical and mental health. Under the continuing pressure of the boycott initiative, Tashkent recognized the State-imposed policy of forced labour occurring in the country and committed to eradicating it in 2017. Following joint agreements with NGOs and establishing independent verification mechanisms to monitor progress, the Uzbek Forum for Human Rights — a partner of the Cotton Campaign — found “no systematic government-imposed forced labour during the cotton harvest” in 2021.
As a result of this “historic achievement,” marked by years of “persistent engagement,” the boycott was finally lifted in March 2022. ILO, which recognized the improvements presented in Uzbekistan, applauded the measure and called all involved actors to “seize the economic benefits” of resuming trade. The Uzbek government has seen this decision as an opportunity to diversify its trade relations and reduce its national economic dependence on Russia and the Moscow-led Commonwealth of Independent States. Tashkent plans to implement technical cooperation programs with the United States and the European Union to increase exports and strengthen the textile sector. With these measures, the government expects to attract foreign investment and raise revenues, which will, in turn, facilitate the implementation of economic and social reforms in the country.
Future Challenges
Despite all the progress, Uzbekistan continues to be considered by international civil society as a high-risk commercial partner, as there are still isolated episodes of forced labour in some regions. The reform programs implemented by the government have prioritized industrial modernization and supply chain integration and have yet to emphasize legal guarantees for its workers.
Consequently, the Cotton Campaign has developed the Framework for Responsible Sourcing from Uzbekistan to integrate the UNGPs into trade relations with the country. The initiative focuses on capacity-building strategies that support corporations in implementing human rights due diligence mechanisms in their business relationships with Uzbek cotton producers. This human rights approach allows retailers and suppliers to work collaboratively to identify social risks and generate joint strategies to mitigate and prevent them. Additionally, the model establishes independent and continuous monitoring schemes and non-judicial grievance mechanisms fulfilling the UNGPs conditions to enable corporate accountability and access to remedy.
Even though there are still problems in the Uzbek cotton industry, the Cotton Campaign exemplifies the effectiveness of civil mobilization. It shows how both NGOs and multinational companies can implement the UNGPs in the context of grave and systemic human rights abuses. By successfully exploiting the Uzbek economic dependence on cotton, the initiative addressed the social impacts of bilateral trade with Uzbekistan and pressured Tashkent into abandoning repressive practices. Although imperfect, this accomplishment offers an advocacy model for addressing similar situations in China and Turkmenistan, where thousands of people — including ethnic minorities — are subject to forced labour. However, the sustainability of the positive outcomes will rely on something other than implementing coercive measures. Its success will depend on adopting human rights due diligence mechanisms to prevent, mitigate, and redress the harms derived from such business activities.
Edited by Gabrielle Andrychuk
